I say good on the Vegan Society for sticking to their guidelines. Apparently Ecover also have a rolling ban (any ingredient tested five years ago can be used in their products). This is also unacceptable.

I hope that Ecover will bring their products back within ethical guidelines as their products are great from a green point of view.

Posted by: Clare | August 14, 2007 11:33 AM

the thing is, at a certain level, small lifeforms are always going to be damaged by what humans and other larger animals do. If you don't accept that, I don't see how you can think any cleaning products are OK to use.

To me, the Vegan Society are just muddying the water. They're basically saying that buying a product that involved fleas in the testing process is no better than buying another that definitely sentient animals were tortured and killed to produce. To me, there is a difference. And I think that is the common sense attitude unless you are going to live in a vacuum (good luck).

Also, if your pet had fleas would you not try and get rid of them?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 11:57 AM

My comment made on the news article:
==
Vegan society is technically right to withdraw their marque, but I think their guidelines are wrong; Ecover is testing to ensure minimal impact on wildlife, which surely must be a good thing?

From what I can read, their objective is to ensure the fleas aren't harmed by it's usage and disposal, and without the tests more fleas in the wild could potentially be harmed by the release of the detergent.

So while the minimal impact philosophy makes sense, in this case there's a contradictory problem. Think I'll continue using their stuff.
==
On a technicality, Vegan Soc is correct to withdraw, but if Ecovoer stopped the testing, then more animals would be hurt medium term, so their rules appear to be contradictory to purpose.

Posted by: MatGB | August 14, 2007 12:02 PM

Matt - that's a very valid point, too!

Posted by: Abi | August 14, 2007 12:08 PM

This comes as no surprise. I know a vegan crusty who was lifting with nits and other creepy crawlies but refused to treat them or brush his teeth as it would hurt the tiny creatures that lived on him - creatures that had no reservation about hurting him, with his sores and wounds and stinking dental decay.

Acting in this manner isn't going to help the more pressing concerns of stopping larger species from becoming extinct or ensuring ethical treatment of farm animals. So, while some vegans are fretting about fleas, a species of Chinese dolphin has vanished forever. Perhaps the efforts of the flea defenders would have been better directed elsewhere?

Posted by: Stimpy | August 14, 2007 12:11 PM

"Water Flea" is the colloquial name for a tiny (though not microscopic) freshwater creature, much beloved of goldfish, & to be found in British waterways.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:

"Water flea is a generic term for a number of small aquatic crustacea characterised by their jumping or jerky mode of swimming. Most are between 0.1 mm and 3 mm in length. Most commonly, they will be species of Daphnia but a number of other genera are also commonly included, including Cyclops, and Diaptomus. Water fleas are commonly sold as aquarium food since they are easy to culture and reproduce rapidly."

I'd guess that Ecover's reasons for testing on these tint creatures would be because they are concerned about the effect of their product if it gets into streams & rivers, which, in my opinion, is fairly responsible of them.

But no, they are not "vermin" & therefore less worthy of life, they are an important link in the aquatic food chain.

Do I think that killing a few of them to help find out how to protect British waterways is wrong?

No. But then, I've also fed them to my fish, & I'm not a Vegan.

Lucy

Posted by: Lucy | August 14, 2007 12:27 PM

"Water Flea" is the colloquial name for a tiny (though not microscopic) freshwater creature, much beloved of goldfish, & to be found in British waterways.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:

"Water flea is a generic term for a number of small aquatic crustacea characterised by their jumping or jerky mode of swimming. Most are between 0.1 mm and 3 mm in length. Most commonly, they will be species of Daphnia but a number of other genera are also commonly included, including Cyclops, and Diaptomus. Water fleas are commonly sold as aquarium food since they are easy to culture and reproduce rapidly."

I'd guess that Ecover's reasons for testing on these tint creatures would be because they are concerned about the effect of their product if it gets into streams & rivers, which, in my opinion, is fairly responsible of them.

But no, they are not "vermin" & therefore less worthy of life, they are an important link in the aquatic food chain.

Do I think that killing a few of them to help find out how to protect British waterways is wrong?

No. But then, I've also fed them to my fish, & I'm not a Vegan.

Lucy

Posted by: Lucy | August 14, 2007 12:28 PM

This post on ecover misses one crtical point. It's just not water fleas that Ecover admits to testing on, it's rabbits as well, and it certainly wouldn't suprise me if they are required to test their products on other animals as well for regulatory purposes as well. As Bio-D has shown, ethical companies can make environmentally freindly products while shunning animal tests. Ecover is FORCED to animal test by the EU because they CHOOSE to include new synthetic ingredients in their formulations (like surfactants found in their Squirt Eco product). These new, unproven synthetics have no saftey data on them so the govt mandates animal tests to prove their safety. It's all down to a choice--nature is full of natural cleaning agents that can be used to make great cleaning products AND REQUIRE NO NEW ANIMAL TESTS BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THEY ARE SAFE. We don't need next generation chemicals to keep our kitchen clean, yet Ecover insists on using them, which means they are experimenting their products on animals. Good on the Vegan Soc for dropping Ecover. Ethical consumers should stay away from the likes of Ecover until they clean up their act, and support a company like BIO-D instead...

Posted by: Sean | August 14, 2007 12:51 PM

You're joking, aren't you?

Do you know that EVERYTHING you DO is KILLING bacteria, tiny invertebrates and...

oh god, it's foolish even trying to argue. As you were.

Posted by: Sunny | August 14, 2007 12:56 PM

Quoting Abi "This comes as no surprise. I know a vegan crusty who was lifting with nits and other creepy crawlies but refused to treat them or brush his teeth as it would hurt the tiny creatures that lived on him - creatures that had no reservation about hurting him, with his sores and wounds and stinking dental decay."

I have never met a vegan who fits that description and I don't believe that you have either. If you're going to criticise at least back it up with some facts.

The vegans I know are compassionate and caring. They are simply doing their best to avoid inflicting suffering. It is not possible to live in society and avoid all cruelty but that is not an excuse for not doing your damndest.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 1:59 PM

To the anonymous poster above> You're quoting Stimpy, not me.

Posted by: Abi | August 14, 2007 2:42 PM

The story says it was "mutually agreed upon", so I don't see them complaining. And I don't think you can dictate to a Vegan how Vegan they should be. Their goal is to harm no life, and that little Water Flea is life. It's clear that the product and company aren't Vegan and shouldn't claim to be. Best to find a "Vegetarian" distinction or a "Good Environmental Neighbor" award or something else to replace it, because if the Vegan society were to allow their mark to continue it would invalidate all other certifications they made.

Posted by: David Kearns | August 14, 2007 2:53 PM

Quoting anon: "I have never met a vegan who fits that description and I don't believe that you have either. If you're going to criticise at least back it up with some facts."

I have met said dreadlocked vegan on numerous occasions unfortunately. He smells really bad and things its okay to do so as it wouldn't be vegan to purge himself of wee beasties. I'm not divulging this person's name as it wouldn't benefit you or me if I did so. If you haven't met him or his type, then you're in for a treat when you do, lol.

OTOH, I was vegan myself for a long time (am veggie again now) and I have other vegan friends who do control personal parasites and brush their teeth.

My point is that being vegan is no excuse to be ridiculous. Are vegans who wash, clean and walk along pavements that might have living insects on them any less vegan than those who take things to extremes? Are Ecover really guilty of the abuse of a few fleas in order to develop a product that will save the lives of more creatures in the longer term?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 4:58 PM

The Vegan Society's responsibility is to stick to their guidelines. I don't see the problem with that. Nobody is being forced to boycott Ecover purely because it has lost this one endorsement. Provided the information is available, people (who I will assume are adults, since children don't usually buy cleaning products!) are capable of making their own minds up about which issues affect their choice of products.

Posted by: Liise | August 14, 2007 6:32 PM

The Vegan Society's logo is subject to meeting a set of standards, which Ecover doesn't meet. I don't see how any other decision was possible.

That their aims and ethics (and their views on the acceptability of animal testing of any sort) are not in line with your own is hardly surprising, given that you're not a vegan. As such, I'm a little confused as to why you're worried about the use or not of their mark in the first place.

Posted by: Steve | August 14, 2007 7:21 PM

Quoting anon: "I have never met a vegan who fits that description and I don't believe that you have either."

Really? How did you manage that?
Just as not all human beings are lovely people that would never do a thing to harm any other human, not all vegans are well dressed, hygenic and lovely.

I have known vegans who had appalling self-hygiene for reasons similar to those described above by Abi and I have also known vegans who were clean and pristine. There are those that debate their ethical and moral choices and are willing to listen to reasoned arguments just as there are those who are close-minded in their lifestyles.

I think it's said that the Vegan Society have made this decision and I hope they don't lose track of their basic philosophy in the minefield of guidelines.

Posted by: Nikki | August 14, 2007 7:50 PM

For what it's worth, I think that the Veg Soc made the right call regarding the blood from farmed rabbits (buying it from someone else doesn't absolve them of the blame) and the "rollover rule". Ecover is happy to give money to companies testing on animals, but only 5 years after the testing is done so that enough time has passed for people to forget about it? It's not acceptable. Many other companies have a "cut-off rule", which involves something like "we won't use any ingredients tested on animals after 1980". Fair enough.

As far as the water fleas go, this was a technicality. It seemed like a reasonable test to me, but the Veg Soc has decided to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and they've decided to include all of Animalia - unfortunately, this includes "technically animals" with rudimentary nervous systems and brains (or no brains at all).

The water flea test alone would not deter me from buying their products if I found them to be the best on the market/the most environmentally responsible.

(12 years veg, 8 years vegan here.)

Posted by: lauren | August 15, 2007 1:39 AM

The beauty of veganism is that it's so simple - don't kill or exploit animals - the biological line is drawn between plankton (animal) and algae (plant)

The Vegan society have to stick to this because they are The Vegan Society. You on the other hand are free to make compromises where-so-ever you see fit. Life is full of compromises.

There is a Vegan Clause - "Wherever practically possible"

The Vegan society isn't there to tell you what to do only to tell you what's vegan. Inconvenient truth or not.

There are a number of other companies that don't test, don't use the 5 year rolling rule and have really good cleaning products. Choice is yours !

Ecover are on our side. They agree with the sentiment it's a just a catch 22 - kill the fleas to save the fish.

Whatever your decision there's no doubt that Ecover are far better than all the big brands so this is no excuse to beat them up - if yoiu wanna pick a fight target Proctor and Gamble or Unilever!!

Posted by: Don Quinoa | August 16, 2007 1:36 PM

Did you overlook Ecover's exploitation of rabbits on purpose? It's not just about water fleas, and even if you think water fleas aren't sentient, surely you must realize that rabbits are sentient! And I'm sure the rabbits haven't volunteered to have their blood taken from them.

Posted by: Melissa M | August 20, 2007 12:56 AM

Stimpy: "This comes as no surprise. I know a vegan crusty who was lifting with nits and other creepy crawlies but refused to treat them or brush his teeth as it would hurt the tiny creatures that lived on him - creatures that had no reservation about hurting him, with his sores and wounds and stinking dental decay."

You're using a VERY flawed stereotypical image to describe the entire group now opposed to Ecover because they test on animals.

The Vegan Society exist to make Vegans aware of what products are suitable for them or not. I'm pretty sure most vegans wouldn't agree with needlessly killing fleas (yes, needless. there are other ways to test products.)

Also, most of the people here critising the VC's moves seem to overlook the rolling ban and testing on rabbits that Ecover have commited.

Posted by: Tim Miller | August 24, 2007 5:40 PM

What I'm concerned about is how long Ecover have been doing this, and how it is that the Vegan Society were not aware of it in the first place.

If this is a recent development in Ecover's practices i.e. testing on *whatever* animal species, the least it could have done (to protect its integrity) is notify the Vegan Society in advance of such intentions.

If this is something Ecover have been doing for some, which seems likely, then it's clear that Ecover neglected to inform the Vegan Society of such practice. If Ecover wishes to secure 'vegan' endorsements from official Vegan bodies, then I believe it is Ecover's responsibility to ensure they fully understand the requirements. If this is the case, then I also have to ask if there is anything within the Vegan Society's own practices that could have contributed to this situation arising in the first place.

My faith in Ecover, which wishes to present itself as environmentally friendly and also seeks to promote ethical credentials in regards to animal testing/welfare, is all but destroyed. Whether or not Ecover properly veganises its products in future, I will still have serious doubts.

By failing to be upfront about their testing makes me feel that Ecover is driven more by profit concerns than we are led to believe. Yet, promoting on the basis of ethics requires honesty and integrity.

I have until now taken it on blind faith that any product displaying the Vegan Society logo meets my needs as a vegan. However, though while I am sure the Vegan Society would not knowingly allow something like this to occur, this incident has also dented my faith in the logo.

Though, credit to the Vegan Society is due for withdrawing the logo from Ecover. However, given the time that has passed since this issue was first identified, it still begs the question as to why Ecover products are still listed under the Vegan Society's trademark listings.

Posted by: Sim | August 26, 2007 6:48 PM

Both the original post, and several others, have ignoredf some basic facts. Whatever you think about daphnia , Ecover have broken the 'vegan' ethci in other ways too, they have tested their products on rabbits blood and they use the 'five year rolling rule' (so, eventually, they can use contents tested on animals). No ethical vegan should find this acceptable.

I would love to know how long this, so called, ethical compnay lied to the Vegan Society, and everyone else, as they would have never got a vegan approved logo if they had told the truth in the first place.

Posted by: Caryne | August 30, 2007 10:25 AM

At the end of the day, these companies, whether it be Ecover, Unilever or any other household name, are all out to make as much money as they can. Ecover use their "Environmentally Friendly" sales pitch to lure the shopper to buy their products as it makes the consumer feel good about buying something that helps protect the environment. It doesn't surprise me to hear that they are/have been testing their products on insects/animals/living things.

Posted by: Jason Wilkinson | September 20, 2007 7:09 PM

I really don't think it's just about fleas! WWF withdrew Ecover from their on-line shop a few years ago because of animal testing policies and the BUAV informed me that "Ecover must sometimes accept animal-tested ingredients from large companies over whom they have no control in order to follow its vision." Ecover operate a five year rolling rule which is not just confined to fleas...

Posted by: jacq | January 17, 2008 5:22 PM